John Quinn is joined by Jack Neumark, Managing Partner and Co-Head of Specialty Finance of Fortress Investment Group and founder of its Legal Assets Group. They discuss the emergence of legal assets as a distinct investment class. Fortress is a leading player in litigation finance with over $6.5 billion deployed in legal assets and a current portfolio of approximately $3 billion. While most litigation funders typically invest in individual cases, Fortress invests in diversified portfolios of litigation claims and contingent fee receivables. Fortress underwrites and finances these portfolios the same way it does other specialty finance products. To underwrite a portfolio, Fortress has lawyers examine the cases in the portfolio to determine how strong and likely to settle they are. They consider factors including the defendants and how creditworthy they are, the damage theories asserted, how far the case has progressed, what motion practice has revealed, and whether related criminal charges have been filed. They also consider the law firms involved, the judge, and the venue. Fortress also conducts quantitative analyses of the historical results of similar cases based on publicly available data and proprietary data it has accumulated in the 15 years it has invested in legal assets. Legal asset portfolios are attractive to many investors because the results of lawsuits are less subject to the performance of the economy in general than many other classes of assets. Also, because the market for legal assets is still developing, sophisticated investors can often obtain better returns than in more mature markets. Jack believes that as the industry matures, especially with potential regulatory changes around law firm ownership, litigation finance will become more mainstream and integrated into broader investment strategies.

John is joined by Christian Athanasoulas, KPMG’s Global Head of International Tax and M&A Tax and U.S. Tax Practice Leader – Services. They discuss the groundbreaking shift in the U.S. legal industry arising from Arizona’s decision to allow non-lawyers to have ownership interests in law firms. This move aligns the U.S. with countries like the U.K. and Australia, where non-lawyers have been permitted to own law firms for years. KPMG has successfully operated legal practices in over 80 countries, but U.S. regulations previously prevented it from offering legal services alongside its consulting, tax, and advisory work. Arizona’s new rules allow KPMG to offer the non-legal services it typically offers clients together with related legal services performed by the new law firm. Previously, KPMG’s clients would have to retain law firms with no formal ties to KPMG for those services. Christian led the effort to establish KPMG Law US, a wholly owned Arizona law firm under the KPMG umbrella. KPMG Law US is an independent LLC with Arizona-licensed lawyers and a compliance officer to ensure adherence to legal ethics rules. Although owned by KPMG, the law firm maintains autonomy. It can assist clients with legal matters such as contract integration and regulatory compliance. KPMG Law US leverages its parent company’s technological advancements, including AI-driven contract analysis and process automation, to improve efficiency in the provision of legal services. The new law firm will not engage in litigation. For matters outside of Arizona, it will co-counsel with lawyers admitted in the appropriate jurisdiction. While Arizona is currently the only state permitting non-lawyer ownership of law firms, other states are exploring the possibility of passing similar laws. The creation of KPMG Law US could signal broader changes in the legal profession, potentially reshaping traditional law firm structures.

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation. They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts. The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently. Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available. &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes. Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output. The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace. It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence. &AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing. This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there. AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation. This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly. Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm’s proprietary data and preferred styles.

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel’s Wilmington, Delaware office. They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions. Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.” Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare. In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework. The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders. Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners. Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc. In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair. Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty (e.g., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation. “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend. To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions. The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed. It also reforms the state’s books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands. The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world’s demand for greater legal certainty. Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise.

John is joined by Cassandra “Sandi” Knight, Vice President of Litigation and Discovery at Google. Sandi oversees a global team of over 200 in house legal professionals and a host of law firms around the world. The case load she oversees varies from patent disputes to content moderation, to AI, and privacy issues, among many other types of disputes. Sandi’s department focuses on three functions: litigation, discovery, and support for investigations. Cases rise to the level of Sandi’s attention based on the legal issues involved, the amounts at stake, and the reputational risk and the potential for press attention. One challenge of managing such a wide variety of matters lies in balancing the daily influx of urgent unpredicted matters with the need to intentionally carve out time for deeper strategic reflection. Much of Google’s litigation docket includes cutting-edge disputes in areas like AI and content moderation where there is often little clear legal precedent. In recent years, tech companies have experienced a shift in public perception—from celebrated innovators to targets of public skepticism. This shift has affected Google’s approach to jury trials and litigation in general. Sandi underscores the importance of building trust between the legal team and the business side of the company. This requires lawyers to take clear, actionable positions on legal matters, rather than simply explaining the competing legal risks and leaving the business team to weigh those risks and develop future plans on their own. Collaboration between outside counsel and internal product lawyers is critical to shaping legal strategy in the evolving tech landscape. Counsel who conduct careful mock argument sessions, particularly in Supreme Court litigation, have helped significantly shaped Google’s litigation strategy and contributed to positive outcomes. In general, Google values outside counsel who provide early engagement, strategic foresight, efficiency, and the ability to make legal recommendations rather than hedging every opinion.

John is joined by Andrew Frank, Founder and President of KARV. They discuss the evolving role of strategic communications in legal and other public relations “crisis” situations. KARV focuses on strategic advisory services, particularly in high-stakes litigation, crisis response, and public policy matters. Roughly half of the firm’s work involves law-related matters, including disputes, investigations, and regulatory issues. KARV operates internationally, with offices in major U.S. cities and partnerships around the globe. Early engagement is crucial in crisis communication planning. Ideally, engagement begins before a crisis breaks. However, most companies fail to prepare for crises in advance, and communications professionals are typically brought in after legal action has begun. Once engaged, the primary goal of KARV is to support the legal team while minimizing risk. This support includes preparing official statements, crafting consistent messaging, and developing media strategies aligned with legal objectives. The legal and communications teams must collaborate closely to avoid missteps and ensure a unified public-facing narrative. Clients need to understand the mechanics of media engagement, including the distinctions between on-the-record, off-the-record, and background communications. In crisis situations, clients must also understand the expectations of different media outlets, along with the challenges of working with internal PR teams that may lack experience in crisis or litigation matters. Common mistakes include saying too much, failing to coordinate messaging, and ignoring broader reputational concerns. Finally, Andrew explains how artificial intelligence is affecting the communications landscape. On the one hand, AI offers useful tools for drafting and analysis. However, AI also raises new challenges by accelerating the spread of misinformation. For example, a news broadcast may be assembled by an AI aggregator and delivered to the audience through an AI generated avatar without any of the content being confirmed as true. Social media posts now appear and receive more than a thousand comments in 15 minutes; that many comments must be generated by AI and both the comments and the original post may be fake. The need to correct such misinformation means that human judgment and experience in managing complex communications environments will remain central, especially in high-stakes legal disputes.

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions. Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation. The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions. However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement. The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government’s behavior toward non-parties. Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country. Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s. Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution. Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand. Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making. These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class. The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship. Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies. He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.

John Quinn is joined by Mohammed Rashik, Founder and CEO of Rain Intelligence, a legal technology company that helps lawyers identify emerging legal needs and find potential clients—to make rain. Rain Intelligence provides AI-powered analysis of data from social media, government filings, e-commerce platforms, and other sources to detect patterns and events that could signal potential class action cases, regulatory issues, or other complex litigation opportunities. The goal is to make business development for lawyers more systematic and data-driven than more traditional, reactive methods. The idea for Rain Intelligence was born from Mohammed’s frustration with the lack of tools to help generate clients when starting a solo practice. He began identifying legal issues proactively—such as discovering that a warehouse fire had likely been caused by a neighboring property’s code violations—and found this approach led naturally to client engagement. The core insight was that legal needs often follow predictable patterns triggered by real-world events, and those patterns can be identified and scaled using data science. Rain Intelligence delivers daily personalized reports tailored to each attorney’s practice areas, clients, and litigation history. These updates synthesize signals from a wide range of data pipelines—such as product labels, product recalls, consumer complaints, Substack articles, government announcements, and class action advertising—to identify high-potential legal opportunities. The opportunities are analyzed to assess the prospects for proving liability, the amount of damages, and the collectability of judgments. The service is subscription-based and is currently used by roughly half of the Am Law Top 10 firms and 20% of the top 200. Mohammed explains how Rain Intelligence pieces together disparate data sets to uncover legal risks that may not be obvious in isolation. For example, labeling a food item “preservative free” while including citric acid, which regulators consider a preservative, could be the basis for a lawsuit when combined with regulatory guidance and recent litigation trends. The technology is built to integrate seamlessly into legal workflows, helping lawyers generate business by doing what they do best—spotting legal issues and advising clients.

John is joined by Andrew Berdon, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office, and Joe Paunovich, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office. They discuss the $300 million victory Andrew and Joe’s team recently won in Delaware Chancery Court in an earnout dispute arising from a pharmaceutical merger. The dispute involved the acquisition of Syntimmune, a biotech company founded around a promising antibody drug—Alexion 1830—designed to treat rare autoimmune diseases by reducing levels of IgG. The drug was initially developed from academic research at Harvard and advanced by a venture-backed startup that invested over $75 million before selling the company to Alexion, now a division of AstraZeneca. The acquisition included an upfront payment of $400 million, plus up to $800 million in earnout payments tied to eight developmental milestones, most of which were based on progress during pre-approval clinical trials. The dispute arose when Alexion, shortly after the acquisition, deprioritized and ultimately terminated the drug’s development, citing safety concerns and a perceived loss of first-mover advantage. No earnout payments were made. The court found that Alexion breached its obligation to use “commercially reasonable efforts”—defined in the agreement as those a similarly situated biotech company would use—to develop the drug. Evidence at trial showed Alexion made no attempt to benchmark its efforts against peer companies developing similar drugs. Instead, internal shifts in corporate priorities and the subsequent acquisition by AstraZeneca led to the program’s quiet abandonment, despite a highly promising therapeutic profile and a still viable market opportunity. The episode concludes with reflections on the broader pharmaceutical industry, the strategic use (and misuse) of earnout structures, and the importance of precisely drafted effort clauses to protect sellers when control shifts post-acquisition.

John is joined by Avichal Garg, Managing Partner of Electric Capital and Chairman of the Crypto Council for Innovation, and Emily Kapur, Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s Blockchain & Digital Asset Litigation Practice and partner in the firm’s Silicon Valley office. They discuss the complex legal and regulatory landscape surrounding cryptocurrency, digital assets, and the intersection with emerging technologies like AI. The decentralization and autonomy of crypto systems challenges traditional legal concepts. Crypto technology—ranging from permissionless innovation to autonomous systems—raises foundational legal questions about jurisdiction, liability, and personhood, especially when code may function as both speech and money. While early legal battles focused on whether tokens are securities, today’s disputes often focus on jurisdictional issues and cross-border liability for autonomous systems with governance distributed around the world. U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins, while posing regulatory and competitive challenges, may also be an unparalleled tool for promoting U.S. soft power and economic influence. They can bypass traditional banking systems and reach global users, reinforcing the dollar’s dominance. The recently enacted GENIUS Act provides a framework for regulating stablecoins in the U.S. without imposing restrictive reserve requirements, in contrast to European approaches. The rapid evolution of crypto trading venues—centralized exchanges like Coinbase, decentralized protocols like Uniswap, and traditional financial instruments such as ETFs and digital asset treasuries—highlight the legal uncertainty about which regulatory entities have jurisdiction. The increasing use of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) poses additional challenges under theories that all participants in a DAO are potentially liable as partners in a joint venture. More legal innovation is needed, perhaps even entirely new legal entities or frameworks, to accommodate a future in which autonomous code can hold assets, transact, and potentially commit fraud. Courts may begin to shape precedent in the absence of legislation, but a proactive regulatory approach or legal sandbox might be the key to responsibly managing these potentially disruptive forces. Ultimately, the question is whether the law will domesticate crypto or will crypto force legal innovation?

John is joined by Hidetaka Mihara, Senior Counsel at Tokyo International Law Office. They discuss three major legal developments in Japan: (1) the criminal and civil litigation arising from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, (2) the rise of shareholder activism, and (3) Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Executives at the company that ran the nuclear power plant had been warned of tsunami risks years before the event, but did not report the risk to the government until days before the earthquake. The trial court found the executives not guilty of criminal negligence reasoning that tsunamis of this size were so rare and the cost of addressing the risk, cutting off electricity to the region while repairs were made, was so high that the company’s delayed report did not amount to negligence. Related civil claims against the government and management were also dismissed, with courts holding that neither breached their obligations under Japanese law. Despite some public criticism, most Japanese have moved on from the tragedy, focusing on rebuilding rather than retribution. The recent rise of shareholder activism in Japan is a notable shift in a culture traditionally averse to corporate confrontation. This rise follows reforms in Tokyo Stock Exchange rules, greater emphasis on corporate governance, and changes in ownership thresholds that empower minority shareholders to propose changes. One example is the Seven & i Holdings case, in which activists pushed for a corporate restructuring. While their proposal failed, their recommendations for improving the company were eventually adopted by management. Although shareholder litigation remains rare in Japan, shareholder proposals and negotiations have become increasingly effective, aided by the gradual unwinding of entrenched cross-shareholding relationships. Finally, Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel which has been politically controversial in the U.S., is widely seen in Japan as a strategic and mutually beneficial partnership. Japan views the acquisition as a way to strengthen both nations’ competitiveness against Chinese and Indian steelmakers. Ultimately, the U.S. government approved the acquisition based, in part, on obtaining “golden share” rights, including the right to block certain potential managerial changes at the company. The conversation reflects how Japan’s legal and corporate culture is gradually adapting to global norms while maintaining its distinct approach to risk, accountability, and trust.

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff’s Law. They discuss Bill’s view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs’ work. The impetus for Bill’s book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths. The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students’ first year—rather than the fall of the students’ second year. This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights. The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction. Bill’s book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs’ practice. He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation. This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work. He argues that plaintiffs’ lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act. While not every case—or plaintiff’s lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law. Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid. These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.